W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Constructible Exceptions

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:44:36 +1100
Message-ID: <4F6FD814.7040008@mcc.id.au>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Marcos Caceres:
> Yeah, I get that too. I guess that is the trade off between the
> flexibility and security the Web platform provides and my ideal of
> all objects created equal. I guess an environment like Node.js would
> be more appropriate for this kind of thing (as it doesn't provide any
> platform DOM objects, hence there all object would be created equal…
> unless implemented in C++ and then exposed as platform objects:)).

Just to be clear, platform objects need not be implemented in C++.  They 
can be implemented in JS too, as long as all the platform objects 
provided by the system "know" about each other (i.e. can access that 
shared state).  So if the browser, as the implementation of the DOM 
described with Web IDL, exposes some objects implemented in pure JS then 
that's fine.  That's pretty much the essence of the notion of platform 
objects here: they need to be part of the same "implementation".

Jonas at one pointed suggested renaming interfaces to classes, since 
that is probably a more accurate description of what they are, but I 
didn't end up doing that (mostly just because it's always been written 
as "interface" in IDL).
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 02:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC